posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:05 AM
posted by Liberal1984
Even if the Iranians and Syrians decided it was in their interest to prevent arms getting into Iraq they would still have to enforce it. For
individuals it’s difficult to smuggle weapons, for an organization it’s a piece of cake. Take a look at the IRA in the 1970's they had to get
weapons by boat to the island of Ireland through well guarded waters. [Edited by Don W]
There is a big difference in Ireland and Iraq. The Irish Catholic population was unified and well motivated to hide or give passive support to the IRA
members, even though many disapproved of the violence. Successful guerilla movements enjoy popular support or will be unable to continue. I do not
sense there is such support in Iraq for what we are calling the insurgents. Militias issue aside. The insurgents are foreign, and opportunistic. With
a deadline for CF withdrawal, the number of incoming insurgents would diminish on its own.
Yet they managed to get grenades and machine guns. I've seen videos where they hid about one hundred machine guns within hay bales within a barn.
One question on Ireland. I wonder if the IRA did not have sympathizers inside the British security forces? From what I heard, the fighting argument
in the Six Counties was based primarily on severe discrimination by the Protestant majority against the minority Catholic population. Even me, as a
hard nosed Orange-man, would have no truck with religion based discrimination. Or any other kind. So, I’m merely asking if you think the British
were ever able to really put a tight network around the whole island? In other words, is it not possible - probable - no one really had a 100%
dedication to the undertaking?
It’s such a big task that its not worth embarking on given all the trouble that just attempting to do so would cause to e.g. innocent Iraqis living
in dangerous places where they genuinely need their guns. And you will always be able to find-make explosives. [Edited by Don W]
Is it as big a task as sending a man to the moon and bringing him back safely? JFK made that speech in 1962, and in 1969, it was done. Barely 7 years.
As far as I know, from scratch. I’m merely suggesting it - disarming - is what is needed to pacify Iraq. General disarming of the entire population.
If we can’t deal with the most elemental source of violence, how are we going to deal with violence at all? The average Iraqi is left to go it
alone. No one is advocating measures that will insure his future life. Or his families. We are at a cross-roads. I hope we can make the correct
posted by Nygdan
The problem is, the ones that are insurgents, they're not going to let you just take their guns. Whereas the regular joe on the street, he really
does need an AK for his household. Also, there's a good chance that the Iraqi army will be supplemented by civilian militias, where are the guns to
arm it going to come from? [Edited by Don W]
I feel 100% confident if any Iraqi father was asked whether he wanted to remain armed in the outside chance he could defend his family, OR, see all
weapons removed from Iraq - other than police and a small Japan-type defensive army - which would he choose? Disarming. Instead, we talk about
countervailing force. We don’t even look to see if there is a viable alternative. In other words, it’s a given in our society. To violence, we
genuflect for more violence. Our violence is greater than your violence. Therefore, we win?
By the Bye, Jacksonville, 750,000 people, just marked its 59th murder and we are not yet 6 months into the year. I don’t have the numbers but I’ll
wager anyone here 90% were by killed by handguns. Wanna bet?
[edit on 6/26/2006 by donwhite]